View Adopted: 2021.11.05
The author of the communication is A.F., a national of Somalia whose application for asylum has been rejected. He claims that his deportation to Somalia would amount to a violation of his rights under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. The author was granted residence in the State party on 6 April 2004, on the basis of family reunification. In 2013, the Danish Immigration Service decided that the author’s residence permit should be deemed to have lapsed. The author has a wife and children in Denmark, and another wife and children who live in Somalia. As the situation for his family in Somalia worsened, the author was granted a residence permit in Sweden and applied for family reunification for his wife and children in Somalia, as it would not be possible to apply for asylum in Denmark due to the fact that he already had a family residing there. However, in 2012, the Swedish authorities discovered that the author already had a residence permit in Denmark and his Swedish residence permit was withdrawn. In 2014, the author once again applied for family reunification in the State party. His applications for family reunification and for asylum in Denmark were rejected by the Immigration Service.
The author claims that, as a former Member of Parliament in Somalia, he would be at risk of persecution on return to Somalia and also claims that he may be killed or subjected to torture or inhumane treatment on return to his hometown, which is controlled by al-Shabaab. The Refugee Appeals Board examined the question as to whether the author could be required to take up residence in Mogadishu as an internal flight alternative, but the author claims that he is at risk of persecution also there, where al-Shabaab is targeting Members of Parliament and journalists. The author claims that his son was killed by al-Shabaab in 2015. He claims that as he is no longer a Member of Parliament he is no longer entitled to the protection of AMISOM or the right to stay in the secure zone in Mogadishu, as was the case during his previous visits to Mogadishu. Nevertheless, the Board found that the author had not substantiated that his public role in Somalia had been so prominent that he would be at risk of persecution upon return to Mogadishu, given that it had been several years since he had ceased his activities as a Member of Parliament. The Board also noted that the author’s brothers lived in Mogadishu without problems.
The Committee rejected the author’s request for interim measures, which consisted of a request that the State party refrain from deporting the author to Somalia while his case was under consideration by the Committee, and it also rejected the request of the State party to discontinue the communication.
The Committee recalls its jurisprudence that an author carries the burden of proof to support the allegations of a personal and real risk of irreparable harm if deported. In the present case and as it concerns the author’s claims that he would be at risk of persecution upon return to Somalia due to his previous role as a Member of Parliament in Somalia, it notes that the author withdrew from this position 10 years ago, in 2011, and that he provided conflicting information on his role in during the domestic proceedings. The Committee concludes that the author has failed to substantiate, for purposes of admissibility, his claims under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant and declares the communication inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.
11 April 2022